[steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party packages of LibreOffice

Hello,

I'm a volunteer about to add some packaging scripts for LibreOffice in
pkgsrc [1], and as such, I asked on the IRC developer's channel if there
was a problem if I used "The Document Foundation" as a vendor string for
the resulting packages.

This is an extract of the exchanges I had on this channel:

  11:30 < ftigeot> is there a policy on branding / the --with-vendor option ?
  11:33 < ftigeot> would there be a problem if I use "The Document Foundation"
  in my packages ?

  11:39 * ftigeot has just found
  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy
  11:40 < ftigeot> I will use The Document Foundation as vendor string

  11:40 <@mmeeks> ftigeot: ho hum; if you are not the document foundation -
  don't do that.
  11:40 <@mmeeks> ftigeot: I think that is the request of the branding
  guidelines.
  11:40 <@mmeeks> ftigeot: TDF is only for TDF produced builds; LibreOffice is
  for everyone.

  11:46 < ftigeot> mmeeks: the webpage says "You may use the Marks without prior
  written permission (subject to the following terms):
  11:46 < ftigeot> 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially
  unmodified form. "
  11:47 < ftigeot> with a definition of "substantially unmodified" which says
  the way I intend to package it is basically okay

This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page:

  You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the
  following terms):

  1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified form.

  "Substantially unmodified" means built from the source code provided by TDF,
  possibly with minor modifications including but not limited to: the enabling
  or disabling of certain features by default, translations into other
  languages, changes required for compatibility with a particular operating
  system distribution, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the bundling of
  additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions).

The packaging scripts I am creating use the unmodified source code of
LibreOffice and only change the default configuration options.

According to the previously mentionned web page, the usage of
"The Document Foundation" trademark is permitted in this case.

According to Michael Meeks, it was not the intent of the Foundation
to allow the usage of its brand in that case.

Could this point be clarified ? If the usage of "The Document Foundation"
trademark is not permitted for creating third-party packages, the information
on the TradeMark_Policy webpage are contradictory.

Thanks in advance for your answers

[1] pkgsrc - http://www.pkgsrc.org/ - is a framework for building and
packaging third-party software. It was originally created for NetBSD but
is now supported on many systems, including Linux, MacOS X and Microsoft
Windows (Interix)

Hi,

just some comments, far from final decision :wink:

Von: Francois Tigeot <ftigeot@wolfpond.org>

....

This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page:

  You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the
  following terms):

  1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified
form.

Please note the wording "refer to the LibreOffice software". So this
chapter is meant for the software itself, not necessarily the vendor of
the software.

There is another paragraph in the policy:

Non Permitted Use

You may not use the marks in the following ways:

1. In any way likely to cause confusion as to the identity of TDF, the
origin of its software, or the software's license;

So in your case, there might be confusion what the "origin of the sofware"
is - you are the vendor, but you are not "TDF".

Therefore: It is absolutely ok to use the "LibreOffice" trademark, but
it is questionable to use "The Document Foundation" trademark.

If I understand it correctly, the way of building and distributing
the pkgsrc version is very different from what we do within our
project framework. So the way the vendors act are very different and
this should be reflected in the vendor string.

regards,

André

Hi Andre,

> Von: Francois Tigeot <ftigeot@wolfpond.org>
....
> This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page:

[...]

> 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified
> form.

Please note the wording "refer to the LibreOffice software". So this
chapter is meant for the software itself, not necessarily the vendor of
the software.

Hmm. This is a bit unclear. You mean the vendor would only be the packager,
not The Document Foundation ?

There is another paragraph in the policy:

> Non Permitted Use
> You may not use the marks in the following ways:
>
> 1. In any way likely to cause confusion as to the identity of TDF, the
> origin of its software, or the software's license;

So in your case, there might be confusion what the "origin of the sofware"
is - you are the vendor, but you are not "TDF".

I'm starting to realize the "vendor" term should be defined: I'm only writing
packaging scripts, and many third-parties could use them to provide finished
binary packages.

The origin of the software, is clearly TDF: the source code is used as-is,
without any modification.
There may be some small platform-specific patches in the future but that's
all.

Therefore: It is absolutely ok to use the "LibreOffice" trademark, but
it is questionable to use "The Document Foundation" trademark.

Should I only use "LibreOffice" ? The wording on the about box would give
this :
  This product was created by LibreOffice, based on OpenOffice.org, which is
  Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.

Which will be a bit weird...

If I understand it correctly, the way of building and distributing
the pkgsrc version is very different from what we do within our
project framework.

Not really: pkgsrc is a framework to manage and build packages. LibreOffice
is build in the same way as a regular developer would do it and the end
result is a binary package, like a .deb or .rpm

What I've been doing so far is:
- make a list of the source code distribution files, as well as where to get
them
- add checksums for these files
- define the dependencies needed to build and/or run LO (zip, cups, libxslt,
  etc...)
- define the packages it may conflict with such as staroffice
- specify some configuration options (disable opengl, use system libraries,
  etc...)
- tell pkgsrc to launch the build with autogen.sh and gmake

In a way, it's a machine readable specification of the build instructions
available on the developers web page.

So the way the vendors act are very different and
this should be reflected in the vendor string.

What is a vendor and what is very different here ?

This is sounding a bit lame, but nowhere did I see a clarification of the name
"vendor", and what it should do or not.

Kind Regards,

Hi,

...

So in your case, there might be confusion what the "origin of the sofware"
is - you are the vendor, but you are not "TDF".

I'm starting to realize the "vendor" term should be defined: I'm only writing
packaging scripts, and many third-parties could use them to provide finished
binary packages.

The origin of the software, is clearly TDF: the source code is used as-is,
without any modification.
There may be some small platform-specific patches in the future but that's
all.

It's likely for me to fail giving a good vendor definition in English. Let's have a look at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_(supply_chain)

"'Vendor' generally applies only to the immediate vendor, or the organization that is paid for the goods, rather than to the original manufacturer or the organization performing the service if it is different from the immediate supplier."

In this context you may see TDF as "the original manufacturer" (of the source code) while you are the "immediate supplier" (of the final package containing your modifications).

Therefore: It is absolutely ok to use the "LibreOffice" trademark, but
it is questionable to use "The Document Foundation" trademark.

Should I only use "LibreOffice" ? The wording on the about box would give
this :
   This product was created by LibreOffice, based on OpenOffice.org, which is
   Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.

Which will be a bit weird...

Why not use something like "NetBSD pkgsrc Team" - this is more or less what the Linux distributions do. They use "LibreOffice" but a different vendor string, which proudly states that they did invest some effort to bring the packages to their users.

Not really: pkgsrc is a framework to manage and build packages. LibreOffice
is build in the same way as a regular developer would do it and the end
result is a binary package, like a .deb or .rpm

What I've been doing so far is:
- make a list of the source code distribution files, as well as where to get
them
- add checksums for these files
- define the dependencies needed to build and/or run LO (zip, cups, libxslt,
   etc...)
- define the packages it may conflict with such as staroffice
- specify some configuration options (disable opengl, use system libraries,
   etc...)
- tell pkgsrc to launch the build with autogen.sh and gmake

In a way, it's a machine readable specification of the build instructions
available on the developers web page.

Ok, this is beyond my expertise. If it was possible to include all what is neede in our build environment, so that anybody (any member of TDF) could do exactly what you do - I'd agree, you use "The Document Foundation" vendor string. This would of likely mean some work (integrating your modifications upstream, testing it, maybe making it generic ...). But by doing all this you would qualify as TDF member - and this would be agin for me be an indication to use "The Document Foundation" vendor string.

Anyway - at this point I'd like to see the input of other SC-members who have a better understanding what happens technically.

regards,

André

Hi,

>...
>I'm starting to realize the "vendor" term should be defined: I'm only writing
>packaging scripts, and many third-parties could use them to provide finished
>binary packages.

In this context you may see TDF as "the original manufacturer" (of
the source code) while you are the "immediate supplier" (of the
final package containing your modifications).

Okay. In this context, the vendor would be the packager then.

Why not use something like "NetBSD pkgsrc Team" - this is more or
less what the Linux distributions do. They use "LibreOffice" but a
different vendor string, which proudly states that they did invest
some effort to bring the packages to their users.

Well, I asked the question to a group of pkgsrc developers first, and the
answer I got was to use The Document Foundation name :wink:
The wording on the website heavily influenced the discussion towards this
result.

Since I wasn't sure about that, I also wanted to have some opinion from the
LibreOffice side.

Ok, this is beyond my expertise. If it was possible to include all
what is neede in our build environment, so that anybody (any member
of TDF) could do exactly what you do - I'd agree, you use "The
Document Foundation" vendor string.

I'm not sure of the prerequisites myself.

This would of likely mean some
work (integrating your modifications upstream, testing it, maybe
making it generic ...). But by doing all this you would qualify as
TDF member - and this would be agin for me be an indication to use
"The Document Foundation" vendor string.

Hmm, another complication here: I'm a committer and I did this sort of work
in the last few months to port LibreOffice to the DragonFly BSD operating
system.
There were many OpenOffice-specific patches in pkgsrc in the past, and they
have been integrated in the LibreOffice tree by other people.

So far, there is no modification to the source code of LibreOffice in my
prototype packaging configuration.

Anyway - at this point I'd like to see the input of other SC-members
who have a better understanding what happens technically.

Sure. It would be good to be sure what to do in this case.

Francois Tigeot wrote:

> In this context you may see TDF as "the original manufacturer" (of
> the source code) while you are the "immediate supplier" (of the
> final package containing your modifications).

Okay. In this context, the vendor would be the packager then.

Hi Francois, all,

oh fun, since this is a real corner case - unless nobody distributes
binaries from your config, I guess keeping TDF as the vendor would
be fine (to make that 100% undisputable, you may want to commit that
file to our git repos, and use it as the authoritative source).

Once NetBSD starts providing binary packages, things change - then
you should use the wording as Andre suggested below:

> Why not use something like "NetBSD pkgsrc Team" - this is more or
> less what the Linux distributions do. They use "LibreOffice" but a
> different vendor string, which proudly states that they did invest
> some effort to bring the packages to their users.

Well, I asked the question to a group of pkgsrc developers first, and the
answer I got was to use The Document Foundation name :wink:
The wording on the website heavily influenced the discussion towards this
result.

Sigh. Well, the intended meaning is as Michael originally said -
LibreOffice is ok to use, TDF is reserved. Hints on how to improve
the wording appreciated. :wink:

Hmm, another complication here: I'm a committer and I did this sort of work
in the last few months to port LibreOffice to the DragonFly BSD operating
system.

Just as an aside - with all that work you've done, we'd be honoured
to receive your application as a TDF member. :slight_smile:

Hope this helps,

-- Thorsten

Hi Thorsten, all,

Francois Tigeot wrote:
> > In this context you may see TDF as "the original manufacturer" (of
> > the source code) while you are the "immediate supplier" (of the
> > final package containing your modifications).
>
> Okay. In this context, the vendor would be the packager then.

oh fun, since this is a real corner case - unless nobody distributes
binaries from your config, I guess keeping TDF as the vendor would
be fine (to make that 100% undisputable, you may want to commit that
file to our git repos, and use it as the authoritative source).

The end result would be unmanageable; I will not use TDF as a vendor
string.

Once NetBSD starts providing binary packages, things change - then
you should use the wording as Andre suggested below:

> > Why not use something like "NetBSD pkgsrc Team"

Yeah, I'll do that.
The packages will not be limited to NetBSD either: pkgsrc runs on many
common operating systems and every user is potentially able to create a
package.

Sigh. Well, the intended meaning is as Michael originally said -
LibreOffice is ok to use, TDF is reserved. Hints on how to improve
the wording appreciated. :wink:

I'm not sure what to do here; I believe the original thinkers behind the
existing text did not take into account the reality of packaging and
redistribution.
Maybe it should be best they revisit what they meant and what is actually
written / possible in light of this situation first; I'm afraid it will
lead to more misunderstanding if I just start to propose modifications to
the text without having a good grasp of the issues behind it.

> Hmm, another complication here: I'm a committer and I did this sort of work
> in the last few months to port LibreOffice to the DragonFly BSD operating
> system.
>
Just as an aside - with all that work you've done, we'd be honoured
to receive your application as a TDF member. :slight_smile:

How can I do that ? And what does a membership entails ?

Hi,

Just as an aside - with all that work you've done, we'd be honoured
to receive your application as a TDF member. :slight_smile:

How can I do that ? And what does a membership entails ?

What - see http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Membership

in short: you would be eligible for any TDF board, may elect board members, take part in community votes ... only duty is contributing to our projects (or - continue what you are currently doing :wink: )

How - fil in the form at
https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/application-for-tdf-community-membership/

regards,

André

Francois Tigeot wrote:

> Sigh. Well, the intended meaning is as Michael originally said -
> LibreOffice is ok to use, TDF is reserved. Hints on how to improve
> the wording appreciated. :wink:

I'm not sure what to do here; I believe the original thinkers behind the
existing text did not take into account the reality of packaging and
redistribution.

Hi Francois,

hm, a few of the original thinkers are Linux distributors - and
what's wrong with the "NetBSD pkgsrc team" name? It's not that
the name LibreOffice is restrained in any substantial way, like the
Mozilla foundation did with FireFox ...

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi,

>>
>>Just as an aside - with all that work you've done, we'd be honoured
>>to receive your application as a TDF member. :slight_smile:
>How can I do that ? And what does a membership entails ?

What - see http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Membership

How - fil in the form at
https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/application-for-tdf-community-membership/

Thanks André, will have a look.

Hi Thorsten,

Francois Tigeot wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what to do here; I believe the original thinkers behind the
> existing text did not take into account the reality of packaging and
> redistribution.

hm, a few of the original thinkers are Linux distributors - and
what's wrong with the "NetBSD pkgsrc team" name?

Oh, nothing really (almost). It's just that The Document Foundation sounded
more pertinent.
The almost part is because I'm not doing this work on NetBSD :wink:

It's not that
the name LibreOffice is restrained in any substantial way, like the
Mozilla foundation did with FireFox ...

Yah, the "LibreOffice pkgsrc team" may sound good :slight_smile: